Reply to: Hands Free not enough

[doodab]

never watched it!

My brother said it was good but it seemed to pass me by.

It's an animated documentary about life in the north.

[original PM]

Er, not exactly

never watched it!

My brother said it was good but it seemed to pass me by.

[doodab]

I want to live in your world!

Is it full of Unicorns n Rainbows?

Er, not exactly

[original PM]

So basically, we should equip pedestrians with a supply of cricket balls to throw at the windscreens of passing motorists?

That sounds like a recipe for trouble.

I want to live in your world!

Is it full of Unicorns n Rainbows?

[SueEllen]

But how do you know if those people still wouldn't have noticed someone walking across a crossing if they hadn't been on their mobiles?

The human brain can cope with this sort of thing. If somebody throws a ball at your head, you're going to duck. You don't have to be concentrating on looking out for somebody throwing a ball to the exclusion of everything else. It's only a problem driving if you a) aren't actually looking, or b) aren't physically able to control the car because you don't have your hands on the controls.

Read my full post again including the bit you cut off at the end.

[doodab]

The human brain can cope with this sort of thing. If somebody throws a ball at your head, you're going to duck. You don't have to be concentrating on looking out for somebody throwing a ball to the exclusion of everything else. It's only a problem driving if you a) aren't actually looking, or b) aren't physically able to control the car because you don't have your hands on the controls.

So basically, we should equip pedestrians with a supply of cricket balls to throw at the windscreens of passing motorists?

That sounds like a recipe for trouble.

[VectraMan]

You need to be able to switch your attention quickly which if you see some people on their mobiles they clearly can't do.

I've nearly been mowed down by people on the phone as they haven't noticed there is actually someone walking across a crossing.

But how do you know if those people still wouldn't have noticed someone walking across a crossing if they hadn't been on their mobiles?

The human brain can cope with this sort of thing. If somebody throws a ball at your head, you're going to duck. You don't have to be concentrating on looking out for somebody throwing a ball to the exclusion of everything else. It's only a problem driving if you a) aren't actually looking, or b) aren't physically able to control the car because you don't have your hands on the controls.

[original PM]

It's impossible to tell if someone's drunk from outside the car, or high on drugs. Those are both specifically illegal.

yeah now your argument has more holes than a colander

[russell]

It's impossible to tell if someone's drunk from outside the car, or high on drugs. Those are both specifically illegal.

Apart from them swerving all over the road and crashing into lamposts.

[d000hg]

It's impossible to tell if someone is using hands free from outside the car, it's impossible to enforce. They may as well ban thinking about sex while driving.

It's impossible to tell if someone's drunk from outside the car, or high on drugs. Those are both specifically illegal.

[MyUserName]

I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

Having tried to explain various things to you about exercise, religion, diet, science etc this comes as no suprise to me.

[original PM]

yes indeed the point is many things can cause a lack of due care and attention when driving.

Talking is one of them - therefore talking on a hands free kit is one of them

but it is impossible to enforce so don't!

that fact is there is a law against driving with a lack of due care and attention - so lets just leave it there shall we!

[SueEllen]

To be fair, due care and attention is subjective, whereas having an explicit law about mobile phones means if the police see someone holding a phone whilst driving they can just stop them without having to have an argument.

I'd rather see harsher penalties for accidents. If everyone that cause even a minor bump had to go to prison for a week, you wouldn't need all the nanny state laws. Punish me for what I do wrong, not what you think I might do wrong.

Of course in reality driving doesn't require your full attention, but you can't say that without people thinking you're some kind of child killing monster.

You need to be able to switch your attention quickly which if you see some people on their mobiles they clearly can't do.

I've nearly been mowed down by people on the phone as they haven't noticed there is actually someone walking across a crossing.

Then again some people who have chats to their adult passengers should be done.....

[russell]

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Existing laws say driving without paying proper attention is illegal. If specific activities are known to cause distraction, better to explicitly ban them rather than let the driver make the decision what they can or can't do safely because so many idiots will say "I'm such a great driver, I can talk on the phone while eating a sandwich, smoking and getting a hand-job all at once and still be safer than most other road users".

We don't hear anyone suggesting the drink-driving laws be removed since driving while drunk would already be covered by general driving laws.

Oh... maybe those struggling with the idea of their freedoms being eroded ARE the idiots described above?

It's impossible to tell if someone is using hands free from outside the car, it's impossible to enforce. They may as well ban thinking about sex while driving.

[d000hg]

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Existing laws say driving without paying proper attention is illegal. If specific activities are known to cause distraction, better to explicitly ban them rather than let the driver make the decision what they can or can't do safely because so many idiots will say "I'm such a great driver, I can talk on the phone while eating a sandwich, smoking and getting a hand-job all at once and still be safer than most other road users".

We don't hear anyone suggesting the drink-driving laws be removed since driving while drunk would already be covered by general driving laws.

Oh... maybe those struggling with the idea of their freedoms being eroded ARE the idiots described above?